Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 2.djvu/617

 APPENDIX C 6oi Sir Thomas Hastang (son and [about 1328] heir of Sir Robt. Hastang, summoned 131 1), summoned to a Council 1342. Sir Warine Latimer (son and [about 1334] heir of Sir Thomas Latimer, summoned 1299-13 11). Sir John Peche, son and (about 1339) heir of Sir John Peche above- named. Sir Constantine Mortimer, summoned to a Council in 1342. None of these were ever summoned to Parliament. Even though these lists be not exhaustive, they will serve to show how strong was the feeling of the nobility against the King (a feeling only paralleled in the case of James II some 360 years later); how powerful was the combination which Harcla routed and compelled to surrender at Borough- bridge, 16 Mar. 1 32 1/2, and how well he earned the Earldom with which he was rewarded a few days later, viz. on the 25th. The fact that no man of distinction fell in battle on the King's side, and that the aforesaid Earl of Hereford and some four knights were the only ones who did so on the Barons', is an illustration of the feeble resistance offered by the rebels under the incompetent leadership of the irresolute and even cowardly Earl of Lancaster, who had retreated in disorder some ten days before from Burton-on-Trent, when attacked by the King's forces, which were commanded by the Earl of Surrey and the Earl of Kent, Edward at this crisis showing exceptional promptitude and resolution. Probably few people have ever obtained canonization and deserved it less than Saint Thomas of Lancaster. Anyone acquainted with this period, who reads this paper may justly say that the division in the above lists between those summoned to Parlia- ment and those who were not, is without much point or value, but I have been impelled to make it by the unhistoric, factitious, and absurd importance which modern Peerage doctrines have attached to certain Writs of summons; and it is difficult not to accept, say. Sir Ralph Camoys as a Lord when there is a Lord Camoys now existing, and so recognised on the ground that he re- presents a fraction of the hereditary (.'') peerage which Sir Ralph is fondly imagined to have possessed nearly 600 years ago. As would have been the case with Sir William Zouche, were it not that " cest le Mortimer " is added to his name on the Roll, it is often hard certainly to identify a man merely mentioned by name as a Knight. For in- stance, among the rebel host were, Sir William FitzWilliam le Fils, executed at Pontefract, 1322, who was not therefore the same as Sir William Fitz- William of Elmley, summoned to Newcastle, 1327; Sir John Lestraunge who was not, I think, Sir John Strange of Knokin, summoned in error (13 1 3), but Sir John Strange of Ellesmere, uncle of Sir John Leyburne abovenamed, who also fought among the rebels; Sir John Lisle who may or who may not be the Sir John Lisle summoned 1305-11; and Sir John Mauduit who can hardly be the Sir John Mauduit summoned 1342, and who was then aged about eleven, but was presumably his uncle, and brother of Sir Thomas Mauduit, executed as above: in such cases as these, where 77